Eugene Tarne, a senior analyst with the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute recently published an article entitled “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research 25 Years On.” Therein he reviews the controversy that grabbed headlines beginning back in 1998: should human embryos be destroyed so that their stem cells can be harvested and used to work medical miracles?
We at Life Legal were forcefully reminded of the role we played in this controversy. In 2005, voters approved California Proposition 71, which provided $3 billion for the establishment of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), whose express purpose was the conduct of embryonic stem cell research with a view toward producing unlimited medical miracles. Representing two taxpayer groups, we quickly filed suit to halt the implementation of this ballot initiative. Our suit argued that CIRM was not, as required by law, under the exclusive management and control of the State of California.
Did we stop the CIRM dead in its body-snatching tracks? Well, we did so for over two years. The trial court ultimately declined to consider evidence of specific abuses by the ICOC, and in May 2007, the State Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal. The constitutionality of Proposition 71 weathered our challenge and, impatient to get on with its Frankenstein experiments, the CIRM was able to fund embryonic stem cell research.
So the medical miracles soon started rolling in, right?
As it happened, and as is demonstrated in exacting detail in Eugene Tarne’s treatment, none of the rhetoric that was used to pitch this bio-fictional boondoggle had any reality behind it. No such cures were ever generated, and none is on the horizon. U.S. Senator Arlen Specter predicted that embryonic stem cell research would serve as a “veritable fountain of youth by replacing diseased or damaged cells.” The fountain of youth has yet to be found, and no one is looking where Specter directed.
Nor was it only unscientific talking heads who demanded the cells of prenatal children. Tarne lists prominent scientists who delivered similar prophecies, and who have turned out to be the unreliable Prophets of Baal.
While we were holding up the use of human embryos in the courts, research in regenerative medicine was continuing using adult stem cells. The year our lawsuit ended also marked the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells, another ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells. Even the CIRM is awarding most of its funds to research and treatments that do not involve the destruction of human embryos.
The point here is not simply to say, “We told you so.” Rather, it is useful for pro-lifers to observe how these controversies are managed by advocates in academia, media, and politics. As Tarne documents, Sen. Specter in particular explicitly encouraged dishonesty in pushing embryonic stem cell research. It’s also useful to see how highly imperfect victories, and even vigorous defeats, actually do a lot of good. By challenging the implementation of Proposition 71, our lawsuit delayed the insanity till 2007, which was enough time to render obsolete the mad scientist riff recommended by Arlen Specter and company.
Our efforts are never wasted, pro-life friends. Stay the course.